Latest Blog (continued)
Check it Out
You probably already have, but just in case you haven't, check out
Jordan's Eagle Project.
Lots of required topics lately . . .
I watched Obama's address Sunday night. My favorite part was where he gave credit to George W.
Bush for the interrogation that led to the killing of bin Laden. And I also liked the part where he
apologized to Bush for threatening to throw him in prison for the interrogations that led him to bin Laden.
I didn't actually see those parts of the speech. By the time I'd waited a half hour after the announcement was
scheduled I didn't have the patience to watch the rest of the speech after the Whitehouse web site locked up.
But I'm sure that's what Obama said. I'm certain he didn't say anything like "Under MY direction, I I I I me
me me me, I told Panetta, I, me me me, I, and I."
If he had said something like that, that would be classless and beneath a US President.
One of the most entertaining things about this whole deal is listening to
the commentators mix up the words Osama and Obama.
Who would have figured that having a US President with common ties to our
enemy would cause confusion?
A touching Martin Luther King quote is making its way across the virtual landscape:
Beating a dead terrorist's horse
I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one,
not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night
already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate
cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.
That's a touching sentiment. But it's
I think King's part of the quote starts at "Returning hate for hate . . . "
If you've read this blog for more than three minutes you know: I rejoice in the death of
evil men. I do.
The quote above is a beautiful, moving, touching sentiment. But it's completely wrong. It's a view
Peter Keating would take.
Maybe I don't have to hate weeds, but if I don't do my best to eradicate them I can't
credibly claim to love flowers.
A prudent man would leave the topic alone, confident that you get it.
On Love Some More
So . . .
Here's the deal. If you're thinking about death, you're thinking all wrong. You didn't kill
a man. You prevented that man from killing human beings with actual value.
Some guy has a gun pointed at your child's head. Of course you can't kill that
man--he's a human being, too. He's a child of God. Death is a bad thing no matter
who it happens to.
Two words: Bullcrap, and Bang!
In a Priesthood lesson earlier this year someone asked the (canned) question from the lesson
manual "What is Christlike love?" One of the leaders finally ventured an answer that
went something like "It's totally, like, you know, like all like, good and like you know . . .
so . . . yeah."
Click "Prev" below to go to earlier posts
You know me--I'm always willing to help poor souls who haven't yet heard my opinion on a topic.
That's just the kind of guy I am. When the guy giving the lesson said "That's exactly right.
Very good, yes, good answer, that's right, so next question that I'm reading directly out of
the manual . . . " I broke in with my humble but correct view.
When you think about things you love, they are typically things that serve you. I love the
sound of a racing engine. I love apple pie. I love . . . things that make me feel good.
Christlike love is selfless love. It is love that doesn't serve you. When you love a person
who has nothing to give you in return, that is Christlike love.
That's a beautiful thing. But I've coined another term for this. Since I'm already going to
H-E-double hockey sticks, I can post this without too much fear of a lightning strike. Another
term for that kind of love is: Welfare Love. It is unearned love.
Do you love anyone that you don't like? I'm sure you do. It's like the old question from grade
school "Denise, Do you love Frank?" "Yeah, in God's way." (Frank: "Dang it!") You love human beings
because they are God's children. You love all the members of your family, regardless of whether
you choose to spend time with them.
They didn't do anything to earn that love. It's unconditional. That's a good thing and it's
a noble thing to love them that way. I try to let my kids know that I love them
unconditionally--that no matter what they do I will love them. I try not to say "You got
straight As--I love you!" I express pride in their accomplishments and I express love for
them, but I try not to tie them together; make one a condition of the other.
Dang, this is a long-winded piece. I'm willing to press on if you are. Trust me, I'm as bored
at this point as you are. Just hang on a couple more paragraphs . . .
Having someone like you is earned. In that sense it's a higher love than Welfare Love.
You have to earn someone's respect. You have to earn them wanting to spend time with you,
choosing to do things with you, wanting to be around you.
Love me if you have to, but if you like me I've accomplished something.